Polititical compass
Polititical compass
Hares another thought I had.
We all know the political compass. The simple way to map all of politics in just two axis on a 2d plain. Reducing the fascinating complexity of society to just four sectors. With such unhelpful labels as "left" and "right". Here's my version. The "left-right" axis is replaced with class authority and "lib-auth" with state authority. Now If any lib-rights want to argue with me about the label I'm happy to do so.
The other thing I want to note is that, in my opinion, the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality. because authority creates authority. By mapping class and state authority separately you can see that if you somehow manage to eliminate one but champion the other, the remaining will just form the other. Either by state bureaucrats becoming the privileged class, or the companies creating private militias and becoming states in all but name. That is what the black arrows represent: the tendency to move to a stable balance between the two authorities.
You're viewing part of a thread.
What exactly do you mean by this? How am I limiting the chart? And at what point did I state facts?
the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality
Am I misunderstanding?
That's an opinion. Not a fact. you can tell because right before you start the quote I said "in my opinion".
Also I'm not limiting the chart. The sectors are shown. I do accept that these ideas exist. I just don't agree with them and wanted to discuss them. That's why I included them in the image.
What is this "auth-left" then? And no, you stated "they represent ideas that do not match reality", after your opinion. That's just straight up denying other viewpoints
It's my opinion that these viewpoints aren't applicable in reality. That's still not a fact. I might have put it a bit more dramatically but In the end it's still just my opinion. I state it in the hopes that someone will come along and say "no. they are applicable and here's why". That does not sound like denying to me.
Also even if I am denying the viewpoints I have no problem with that. They are archic viewpoints. They have very little consequence and are, in my opinion, outdated and primitive. We can do better.
Then maybe state those viewpoints? No one can come point them out if you don't state them